In terms of specifications, apparently and happily, yes. The 722 is
pretty much near the very top of low noise standards I've come
across. I want to make sure people understand the complications.
Hooking a mic up to a chip pre circuit with PIP and getting that
performance seems to have been another matter. Until we had the
phantom supplies that could deal with it (at least the tested Sony
PIP pres), condenser mic performance was inconsistent with factory
specs with several mics I tested. There was more noise, less output
etc. You probably can't download the 4.5mb quicktime movie test, but,
interestingly, our friend, the Rode NT-4, regained the 14dB loss in
output when used on the phantom supply compared to plugged directly
into the HiMD mic pre. Maybe all PIP pre circuits are close enough in
design that the phantom supplies will work on all of them. That would
be great news. If not, the clues will add up and we'll be able to
predict performance better than we can now. Rob D.
At 12:37 PM +0200 7/27/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>With respect to inherent noise, all MD input amps' are very similar.
>
>Klas.
>
>At 10:11 2005-07-27, you wrote:
>>The jury is still out on how many consumer grade
>>recorders can perform this well with the portable
>>phantom supply units. All of the PIP pre
>>recorders I've tried so far have had dramatic
>>improvement, but that's only a Sharp MT90, my
>>TRV-900 sony camcorder and the Sony NH-900 HiMD.
>>I've asked around on several lists for theories
>>about what the heck could be going on but no one
>>has come forth with much so far.The Art unit is
>>available for $44 on eBay, so I'm hoping people
>>will pick one up and see what it'll do for their
>>MD/DAT/Camcorders etc. and report back. I have no
>>background in circuitry whatsoever. There could
>>be a special sympathy between the tested
>>components, but if Klas's observation is
>>correct-- that today's mic pre chips are
>>basically high quality-- then we may see that
>>many recorders work. Of course, it takes a low
>>noise, phantom powered condenser mic to reap the
>>benefits. Rob D.
>>
>>At 7:18 AM +0000 7/27/05, Nick Roast wrote:
>> >Rob,
>> >
>> >Could it be that you have discovered an MD with particularly good
>> >mic preamps or do you feel this will be characteristic of all domestic
>> >recorders ?
>> >
>> >Nick Roast.
>> >
>> >
>> >--- In Rob Danielson <>
>> >wrote:
>> >> No doubt people who can afford 722's and Lunatecs will tend to hear
>> >> the improvement in quality they're dollars are paying for.Some will
>> >> recall that I defended the pre in my 744T over every challenger--
>> >> then I made and took some blind tests comparing it to the MP2 and
>> >> Walt, Dan and I concluded, that once the gear gets to a high level
>> >of
>> >> performance its pretty hard to discern. The recent tests I did
>> >> comparing the 722 and the lowly NH-900 HiMD's internal mic pre
>> >seems
>> > > to even question this conclusion...........
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Microphones are not ears,
>>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>>A listening room is not nature."
>>Klas Strandberg
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
>S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
>Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
>email:
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|